http://twitter.com/ChrisPirillo ~ http://www.facebook.com/chrispirillo ~ http://youtube.com/ChrisPirillo

The reason I chose to shoot indoors (with and without artificial light) was to better illustrate "extreme" conditions - knowing that people shoot video "inside" all the time with little regard for light sources.

- iPhone 4 Version: http://youtu.be/2GB8YYe0UCU

- Original iPhone Video: http://blip.tv/file/get/L0ckergn0me-iPhone4IndoorVideoTest527.MOV

- HTC Evo 4G Version: http://youtu.be/waq8jMLT2Ro

- Original HTC Evo 4G Video: http://blip.tv/file/get/L0ckergn0me-HTCEvo4GIndoorVideoTest155.3gp

Notes:

* I didn't edit the raw footage for a reason; compare sources for yourself.
* The Evo seems to have a wider field of view compared to the iPhone.
* The iPhone audio sampling rate is 44k (64Kbps) vs 8k (12.8Kbps) on the Evo.
* Sunshine through my red curtains was difficult for each camera to handle.
* The Evo lens seems to tint blue or red at times.
* Frame rates were diminished on each device: 24fps (iPhone) vs 11fps (Evo).
* The Evo produces an MPEG-4 "3GP" file vs an MPEG-4 "MOV" file from the iPhone.
* The default Evo camera app is superior in features, but lackluster in performance.
* Research indicates the Evo upscales 320p to 720p, FWIW.

Clearly, the Evo (with default settings) doesn't hold a candle to the iPhone 4 (with default settings). I'm sure other camera apps would force the device(s) to record differently, but this test was designed to compare phone defaults.

While the iPhone isn't perfect, I'd certainly consider it a Flip, Kodak Zi*, and Vado killer.

You are more than welcome to upload your own tests as video responses to this.